The debate "Even If there is no gay DNA which I'm betting there is gay people should have rights" was started by
July 1, 2015, 4:44 pm.
61 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 21 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
I_Voyager posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 3 arguments, amanofprogress posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 1 argument, sarah posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
amanofprogress, PsychDave, sidp31, Quantum, I_Voyager, arsonfly, kizrox, invincible_01, Georgi_ZKL24, Mathew, TransPanTeen, bearunter, denno27, desght, stantinou93, historybuff, Shi, oscar, skyfrancois_97, mikec, Thaboykiller, spellbeechamp, Mehdigx, musejay1, mikeyjagar, dgw23, Skeetc15, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx, Freyja, Your_dad and 31 visitors agree.
mace89, hiug, sabrina, sarah, ScreamingEagle, Bodaciouslady16, AstroSpace, Trance, kungnangxx and 12 visitors disagree.
Homosexuality is accepted through most of the developed world. They have the right to marry in 18 countries (including Canada and the united States. They can also have civil unions in many more. So saying there is no way it can be socially acceptable makes no sense because it already is.
As these points have been repeatedly raised in other debates, you may want to do some research to see how many of the things you have said are incorrect.
Homosexuality is not against nature as it is found in many species in nature.
Homosexuality can be accepted in society as a normal act, and in fact has been in many societies throughout history.
Scientists are researching explanations for homosexuality, but as with all human behavior it is not so simple as to have a single definitive cause. Most behavior is a combination of many causes, including biological (DNA) and environmental.
Could you cite where "science has proven that the outbreak of various diseases" is due to homosexuality?
homosexuality is totally against nature and there's no way it can be accepted in societies as a normal act
and it can't be explained scientifically.
However science has proven that the outbreak of certain diseases is due to these twisted practices just like ""Sida "" so Giving them rights will be a reason to support corruption not to rise democracy.
No worries, I originally thought it was saying something along the lines of "Even I know there is no gay DNA, but they should still have rights" which led me to disagree that there was no genetic component. I probably parsed it that way due to recent debates in which someone claimed exactly that. Once I_voyager explained to me it made sense. I've had the same thing happen when trying to fit a thought into the topic, which led to terrible grammar.
Sorry about that. I actually tried to write something longer, but it didn't fit. I cut down words and became paranoid it wouldn't fit and did not add proper punctuation as a result.
OK, thanks. In that case I am changing my answer.
In previous debates on the subject I have linked a study showing genetic similarities between 800 pairs if brothers who were openly gay giving strong correlational evidence that there is a genetic factor to homosexuality.
I firmly agree that even if there is not a genetic component to homosexuality, they still deserve rights.
"Even if there is no gay DNA (which I am betting there is), gay people still deserve rights."
Could you rephrase this as an intelligible sentence?